forums.marpirc.net

Should you want to campaign or ask questions to our candidates, go ahead and post it here. GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

So maybe I will throw here a few ideas ...
<p>
About general tournaments in MARP :<br>
Dates should be decided by editors and tournaments coordinators. In
2002, I think we should come back to a more active competition. For
example, we should organise 1 or 2 regular tournaments, 1 knockout (
MAME Championships ) and why not 1 olympiad, if GB9 is ready to do
that again. We have to plan what will be the 2002 year. Acording to
me, it could be something like that :
January-February : Regular I (6th tourny)<br>
April-May-June : MAME Championships III<br>
Around August-September : Regular II (7th tourny)<br>
November : Olympiad II<br>
Of course, this has to be discussed and improved.<br>
Deca2002 Note : I know there is Deca2002. But this one is 6 months
long ! If we wait for Deca2002 (and then there will be Deca
2003 ...), then we have only 6 months, maybe less if we don't play
during summer ( lots of us take vacations, so it's not a good idea to
play a lot during July-Aug ), and that's not enough. So the Deca2002
is not really a problem, mainly because people involved have 6 months
to play 10 games.
<p>
About regular tournaments :<br>
Public discussion has to be reinitiated. Format of the tournament (
number of weeks, number of games ), random picks of games, ...<br>
About format, my opinion is to have a 1 month or 6 weeks tournament (
2 months seems too long, in the past most of players didn't play
during the 8 weeks ), with 6 or 8 or 10 games.<br>
About choice of games, I propose this idea : the coordinator after
public opinion hearing, decides of categories : shooters, fighters,
races, maze, ... (It could be 8 categories for 8 games). Each player
with a MARP pseudo can vote for one game in each category. Then in
each category, the coordinator randomly picks one game ( or better, 3
or 4 in reserve to avoid problems if the first choice has to be
cancelled for some reason ). If that solution doesn't fit to
majority, we can imagine easily another way of randomly pick each
game, in #marp irc for example : in each category, each game is
numbered and the list is given in a private room to one editor. Then
another player who doesn't know the list gives the number he wants,
so that he picks a game. After that random picks, of course we keep
the good old discussion/debate about games to see if they are
acceptable or not, and to decide about settings to use.<br>
About scoring, no major changes, rank decides of the points, but
maybe we could imagine to give a bonus to the first place.<p>
And finally, about Knockout MAME Championships :<p>
The experience of the MC II shows some improvements to do.
Essentially about the choice of games : coordinators have to study
the leaderboard for each game they want to choose. We made some
mistakes last year, forgetting to do that. This would avoid to give
advantage to some player, and would also give a good idea of what
could be the competition ( is it a tough game, a game to be
marathoned, is there already some players who crashed the
game , ... ).<br>
About registrations : I think it has to be kept. This allows to
advertise in emulation and games sites, and this certainly gave the
popularity we had last time. And if we have 40% of people who
register and don't play the 1st game, it's not problem.<br>
About format and general organisation, I don't think there's much to
change, MC II worked quite well, and most players were happy with
that.<p>
Wow ... long text Thanks for attention !

Laga

--
darre@noos.fr

Hi
<p>

Its really hard to campaign for a position for the MAME Championship
as it was so good and well runned the first time around. About the
games choosen, I only think that the pick of Roc'n'Rope was a bit
unlucky but that's only one game.

<p>

However, I would make the qualifying score a bit harder than in the
last Championship to avoid unserious players. If they can't be
bothered to qualify with a harder qualifying score, they wouldn't
give it a serious try in the next rounds. That way we'll avoid a lot
of dropouts in the first round I think.

<p>

About the Tourney, I would keep it at 2 months, but I'm not nominated
for that position

<p>

Well, what can I say? Vote for me, vote for me

<p>

Bye.

--
frankie@image.dk

To the tournament coordinator candidates: What would your opinion of
a previous qualifying round be (four or five weeks for everyone
to "prove" themselves for the tournament)?

--
mdenham@coinet.com

As far as the olympiad is concerned... we probably won't have another
one until the summer of 2003 I figure. And that won't happen until
we get some rules changed. I'm thinking down the alley of maybe a
limit of games for coordinators to use (3), no assignment of playback
judges, just overseeing editors (that means anybody can confirm it...
which was the case for a couple of games anyway), and maybe even you
can't play a game that you coordinate. I'm not too sure yet. But we
won't have another olympiad until 2003 to answer Lagavulin's
question. GB9

--
goldengameboy@yahoo.com

JD tells asks me why I rejected the nomination. I didn't reject
anything - I simply didn't know I had to tell Pete I wanted to accept
it! I have no time to check the board anymore, that's why I wasn't
aware of this. Oh well.

--
mrvaz@inwind.it

About dissolute city's question a few messages above :
could you precise ? And is that about knockout or about regular
tournaments ?

--
darre@noos.fr